Good Scientists Gone Bad -- Dr. Watson and Dr. Pauling

Yes, which is why we hear of black or white hispanics. I suppose the term "hispanic" is really actually ambiguous. I am considered hispanic by virtue of my grandfather on my father's side, even if it is only 25% of my genetic make-up. I certainly don't look traditionally hispanic, albeit a Spanish, Castillian look.Its interesting to note the wide differences between Mexicans and, say, Cubans. Cubans tend to look like traditional Spaniards with some minor influence of the Caribs, which are thought to be almost completed extinct in its purest form.Go out West a ways and there is a marked difference between most Cubans and most Mexicans, as Mexicans have a large percentage of Native American blood when the Spaniards and Portugeuse mixed with those of Mayan and Aztec ancestry. On most standardized test that I've seen, it lists categorically something to the effect of:

(Not a very broad or accurate list in my opinion. I mean, don't East Indians or Middle Easterns have enough physical characteristics unique enough to give them their own check box?)Then a check box will have you option between "Hispanic" origin or not. So it seems that no one views it as a race. What exactly it is distinguishing is beyond me.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Going backward. Without going back through this thread to check, I can confidently say that this is my second message in this thread. I have been avoiding commenting in this thread because it has made me realize that there are still racist components left in me. Racist feelings are not easy to get rid of! Anyway, considering this is my second message in this thread, I don't know how to react to your statement there. Crashfrog, I haven't engaged you nearly enough for me to make any kind of assessment on your personality. That little comment I made came directly from my observation and my experience. Well, that's not exactly the kind of attitude that I have. When I initially disagree with someone, I always remind myself that I could be wrong. In fact, I have been proven wrong so many times that nowadays I generally question my own position everytime someone challenges me. To tell you the truth, I often look up to you. I think you're one of the most intelligent people I have ever known of. You have very unique perspectives that have often changed my mind about something before I could even comment. But currently, I can see that you are emotionally charged. You quoted only a portion of what I said. I said that while many Italians and Spanish are typically identified as caucasians, many are not. I'd say they are more mediterranean. But I guess they could also be identified as caucasian because there's no "mediterranean" on any census form I've seen.But the important thing is I didn't say all Italians are not caucasian. I said some are caucasian and some are darker skinned and are typically identified as mediterranean.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I'd say you are both right, depending on who we are talking about. Crash is right to say that traditionally, Italians are considered caucasian. But they also have Latin roots. And this also does not take in to consideration that the Moors and Berbers had considerable mixing with the Romans and those of Etruscan heritage, which are now known as Italians, and also of Spanish descendants.What most hispanics share in common with Italians is a Latin influence. Now, you may be asking what language has to do with it, since English, Spanish, Italian, French, etc all share Latin derivatives. But I'm not speaking about the language.The way I see it, when you are talking about Latin, you could be speaking about the language, you could be speaking about a style, or you could be speaking about people from a racial perspective, which all derives from Latium.So it just gets all the more confusing when introducing Latin to the mix, as if "hispanic" wasn't confusing enough.Lastly, I seem to arrived at this party a little late. Who exactly is saying that identifying people by their race is useless? Since race has everything to do with evolution, I would think that evolutionists would be very interested in knowing about it.Therein lies some of what I've been saying about evolutionists. Why are they all too willing to categorize animals, but not humans, as if they are exempt from evolution? Since when does the zeitgeist trump science?Any thoughts on that?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Taz, you're someone to whose posts I look forward to a great deal, so I'll respond to your great compliment only to say thank you, and to recognize that my characterization of your attitude was clearly completely off.Surely you can understand that, after being goaded by Anglagard, I was of a mind to perceive your message in the same way. I apologize for doing so.I can't imagine anything less interesting for people than to talk about me. Agreed?On your point: That's fair enough. I agree with you. And it seems obvious to me that our mutual ambiguity about whether or not the "Mediterraneans" are actually caucasian (I would consider them so, and I believe that they would tend to, as well - I say "them" because I'm more northern Italian, my family is originally from Trentino) really highlights what most people have been getting at - race is so ambiguous a concept as to be nearly completely useless. Who's white? Who's black? There's really no way to tell except to ask people what they consider themselves.

If it existed as biological reality, and not simply as a social construct, we would be interested in it.Human beings supposedly of different "races" have nowhere near the same amount of genetic difference as exhibited in species where there actually are races. They're not, of course. But evolution did not result in human beings being organized into different races. That's the conclusion of genetics. That doesn't stop people, of course, from working to subvert human equality my any means possible, including complete fabrications about the nature of humanity.

It seems everyone except Crash has the position Hispanics can be of any race, as clearly shown by questions 5 and 6 on the 2000 US census form, but if I point it out, I'm 'persecuting' him. As to the rest of your post, I am in agreement.As to why the term race is not more finely delineated, well I think it is a fuzzy and arbitrary concept to begin with and I guess the list-makers had to keep any list to a set length.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

while i agree that the physiological differences between groups of people who were previously genetically isolated does not amount to anything substantial from a phylogenetic standpoint, they aren't invented, and, last i checked, genetics was a part of evolution, unless you're not being clear again. genetic isolation breeds differences which compound until there is genetic separation. the physical separation and genetic isolation of human tribes was laughably brief, as such, no genetic separation occurred, but not for lack of trying.i recall a standard speciation tale about a variety of crab that lives on both sides of the central american sub-continent. the separate populations were reunited when the panama canal was built. the species are completely identical, but they do not recognize each other as being the same species. they fight instead of mating.i think the recognition thing may be a step towards genetic separation. i'm not defending it, but i think it's no accident that people are afraid of and/or weirded out by people who are different from themselves. it's certainly not unique to us.

But there is much to glean from it that has nothing to do with social constructs-- unless of course we were to think of sickle cell anemia as being a social construct for negro's, or skin cancer a social construct for caucasians. How much different do you really think a finch from the Galapagos is compared to one living in terrestrial Ecuador? Sure, there is no question that isolation has isolated a few genes which are now fixed in one population. But are they really all that different? How much more or less different than a Chinese man and a Mongolian woman than two finches? ..... what? That has everything to with evolution, and it is the exact reason why there is such a thing as races.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I am not primarily speaking about the Mediterranean when stating that Hispanics may be of any so-called race. I was largely looking at the slave trade in Latin America prior to independence from Spain where millions of Africans were forcibly taken to the New World. Often in something like the census where there are two questions, one stating which race do you consider yourself and the other asking if you consider yourself Hispanic or not, descendants of former slaves will mark African for race and Hispanic for the other question. Of course there are other possible permutations such as marking Native American and Hispanic or even Asian and Hispanic as in the case of some from the Philippines.The reason I know this is true is because my wife works for the census. But at least one person has implied both of us are too stupid to not only see the results but even to be able to read the form. You should have stopped while you were ahead See Crash's post Message 110. Despite our recent differences, I largely share his take on this one.ABE - Or better yet, Molbiogirl's Message 115Edited by anglagard, : Add a qualifierEdited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

The prevalence of sickle cell is irrelevant to the discussion.Some genetic component of "race" is not causal for sickle cell.The prevalence of cancer is irrelevant to the discussion as well, for much the same reason.I will repeat this for the third time:Do you have a biologically useful definition of race?Not a picture.
Not a list of facial features and hair types.A genetically based predictor for race.After all. We can look at the genome and determine gender.
We can look at the genome and determine eye color.
Why can't we look at the genome and determine "race"? All this time on the boards and you still don't know the definition for species?Chinese and Mongolian are not separate species.Galapagos and Ecuadorian finches are separate species. No.No, no, a thousand times no.There is ONE modern species of human: Homo sapiens.The different "races" are not separate species, nor are they subspecies.Juggs. Dedicate yourself to googling a biologically useful definition of race. At least take a look.You won't find one, but take a look anyway.

(hernan cortez)this guy is spanish. apparently that includes him as hispanic. he has red hair, pale skin, and has the same nose as this guy(james stuart)really?(actually, cortez is a jewish surname. funny story, that.)Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Sickle-cell anemia is prevalent in all malarial areas, not just Africa. Skin cancer happens to Asians and blacks, as well. Much, much less, due to how much less reproductive isolation those two populations have experienced compared to your two finches.Hell, NJ, the two finches you're talking about are two different species. But there's only one species of human being. No reproductive isolation among human populations. What what? I thought I was perfectly clear.I'll repeat - evolution did not result in the human population being separated into races, like it did in a few other species.It just didn't happen, NJ. We've proven it with genetics. "Race" is just a social construct based on a few minor characteristics, like the way the boundaries of states are legal constructs, not physical ones. Hell, borders are usually drawn along things like rivers which actually exist, but the borders of human "races" are completely divorced from any genetic reality. Sure. The question is an evolutionary one, a question of biology, and we were interested in it long enough to find the answer. I've just told you what it is. There's no biological reality of race. Sure, there's people of different skin colors, just like there's people of different heights. It's just that, one of those traits we call "race" and the other one, we don't.

Basing some great sociological web on race is silly, however, that doesn't erase the fact that different races do in fact exist. Is it often ambiguous? Yes. But does it detract from what is obvious? No. If sickle cell anemia is most prevalent among the negro population, then there is great significance to it from a scientific point of view. Then I guess you'd better write a complaint letter to the editors of TalkOrigins who use this argument as a basis for proving the existence of beneficial mutations to stave off malaria. Why would it be any less important than any other taxonomic classification? Look at something Grouper, a saltwater fish. Are there vast differences between Nassau, Goliath, Yellowfin, or Black Grouper? Not really. Yet, its very obvious that they are different. And its largely dependent upon where they are located in how these different characteristics isolate and then fix in a sub-population. Its exactly the same as humans. Being in the military we're all required to shave our facial hair on a daily basis. Of all of the people who get "shave chits" (which is an exemption status due to the prevalence of ingrown hair causing bad razor bumps) have all been black. Does mean anything beyond that? No. But why pretend it doesn't exist, when it does. All Asian people have black hair. If two Asian people have a child, what is the liklihood that the child will come out with blond hair? Less than .005 I'm guessing. Beyond that I don't know what you are asking. I would say the difference is between subspecies, not species. If a group, which identifiably distinguishable from another group, which both the birds and humans qualify for, that lends more credence. If a distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped fins, a different patterning of scales, different wing shape, different skin color, different consistency of body hair, different facial features, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, etc are all qualifiers for subspecies, strictly from a scientific view. But there needn't be a set number of differences. What does that have to do with different races? Are you actually denying that different races exist? Are you saying that if I placed a series of pictures up, you would be incapable of determining the race? Then how is Sickle Cell Anemia present mostly those of African descent and skin cancer is present mostly in those of European descent? That isn't useful? That's useless in ameliorating or identifying disease?Honestly, we need not place too much stock in race. I certainly agree with you. And yes, often it is a bit subjective. But pretending it doesn't exist at all is just silly.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

If they exist, then what are they? Some have tried to define "race" as "a group of humans that was reproductively isolated for a significant period of time", but the rub there is that no such group exists. All humans have been in reproductive contact with all others for essentially all human history. Nobody's ever been significantly isolated, not even the weird religions or what-have-you; people are people and they have sex with each other whenever they can, especially with exotic people who are different from them. It's most prevalent among people who are the descendants of those from malarial areas, and it decreases in prevalence as those people live outside of malarial areas.SCA doesn't prove that human races exist. Try to understand the arguments of Talk Origins before you bring them over here. You've completely failed to do so in this case. Yes. Different species, with greater genetic differences amongst them than between humans.Because humans are the same species, and the different species of grouper are not. What's hard to understand about this, NJ?Do you just not understand what a species is? There are no human subspecies except the one we all belong to. There are no taxonomic graduations in Homo sapiens. There are no human races except by social convention. Finally, he catches on! Biologically there is no such thing as race. The only races that exist within humanity are the races socially agreed upon. Are you saying that if we put up a series of genomes, you'd be able to identify race in every single case? Then why can't geneticists do it, NJ? It's completely useless, NJ. Either a person has SCA or they don't. Either a person has skin cancer or they don't. In neither case is skin color any part of the test for those conditions. In neither case is skin color a factor in the treatment.So how is it useful? If you're a black person with skin cancer, how is the fact that white people get it more often at all relevant or helpful?

This is an easy one! As admitted in Message 34 of War on Christmas: That some others pick up on this trolling and confuse it with serious scholarship is a bit harder to explain...

---

"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder